As he made this speech to AIPAC that made the Likudniks seem like the Israeli version of Bolsheviks, I knew that it was simply another one of his empty platitudes wrapped in lies with a promise that would soon be walked back. How long did this promise last you might ask? It lasted until noon on Tuesday. Here is the transcript of the President’s press conference from Tuesday, March 6, 2012. Some people that I have read over the last couple of hours have been picking the pepper from fly feces so to speak over the meaning of the phrase, “I’ve got your back.” Read it here,another here,and another here. I see something much more cynical in all of this however. That is not to say the the analyses offered by Messirs Morrisey, Sowell, and Blackwell were not well thought out or even 100% correct. I agreed with all of them. I just want to add one little bit for extra consideration.

Barack Obama was obviously lying in one of his two distinct and indeed opposite positions on this one very polarizing issue. He either lied to AIPAC on Sunday or he lied at his Presser on Tuesday. As for determining which speech carried the lie, I believe his actions should speak loudly. Israel has known no greater adversary in the White House than this man. The same one who publicly proclaimed that any process for peace in the Middle East must start with the pre 1967 borders, and be negotiated from there. His UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, is a known Anti-Semite. She has joined in numerous U.N. condemnations of Israel, a Presidential first for our nation. Even today, in his weekly remarks to NPR as reported by others, he framed his statements to suggest that Israel is pushing for military action and that it is in Israel’s best interests to seek a diplomatic solution. Stating it this way of course removes any culpability from Iran, which in the real world inhabited by people who are not brain dead, is the aggressor nation in all of this. Any person who so overtly ignores the Iranian Sabre Rattling with such incendiary comments as we will wipe the Zionist Entity from the map is certainly no friend of Israel. When that same person is able to twist the circumstances and use moral equivalence to place Israel as the aggressor is the worst kind of evil. That person is Barack Hussein Obama.

For the life of me, I will not ever fully understand why politicians place such importance on the Jewish vote. Don’t get me wrong, as a person of the Jewish faith, I am flattered by the attention. To be clear though, we make up less than half a percent of the American Population. Despite the stereo types, we control less than half a percent of the Nation’s wealth. While it is true that our median incomes are slightly higher than the national average, that is also true of other ethnic groups as well, and within those groups, we don’t really stand out in that regard either. While it is true that I enjoy the special attention, who wouldn’t, I still do not wish to be lied to. I realize that all politicians are capable of telling whoppers, but most of them are at least truthful about their core principles. Either Barack Obama has no core principles, or he is fully aware that the ones he does have are in direct contradiction to the majority of Americans. What ever the case is, he is in no way worthy of being President of These United State of America.

Posted by Speranza

My feelings on the current fighting in Syria is that I wish it goes on forever and that Obama continues to make a fool of himself in front of the entire world. I also wish that John McCain and his lapdog Miss Lindsey Graham would learn to keep their dumb mouths closed.

by Victor Davis Hanson

The more Bashar Assad butchers Syrian dissidents, the more the world community expresses outrage — while it does little to stop the bloodletting. Why?

Ironies on top of ironies

1. The politics of intervention. Republicans might seem the most likely to push for an American bombing campaign against Bashar Assad. Some conservatives, in fact, are doing so. But most are silent — and for understandable reasons. Between 2005 and 2009, most liberals made the case that American intervention against an Arab dictator in the Middle East was intrinsically unwise. This liberal chorus included the likes of Hillary Clinton, who as senator had voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein. Barack Obama in 2007 started his presidential bid to the left of Senator Clinton, outlining a plan for near-immediate withdrawal from Iraq, while continuing his concerted attack on almost all the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism protocols.

[…]

All the old left-wing anti-war charges — e.g., that neocons were getting us into a proxy war on Israel’s behalf, or that oil was always a catalyst for any U.S. action in the Middle East — might now equally apply to Syria — a regime that has killed far fewer than the million butchered by Saddam Hussein. In other words, many of those pondering preemptive action against Syria seem to be doing so on the basis that Nobel Peace Laureate Obama, and not George Bush, would be carrying it out. If Bush were calling for tough action against Bashar Assad, we would hear accusations of everything from Halliburton conspiracies to Wag the Dog politics.

2. Bad, worse, or the worst? Other than Iran, Syria has been America’s most vehement enemy over the last decade. It sent jihadists into Iraq to kill Americans, and harbored al-Qaeda terrorists on its own soil. It tried to obtain a nuclear weapon until Israel bombed its nascent enrichment facilities. It was a partner with Hezbollah and Iran in destroying Lebanon and murdering former prime minister Rafiq Hariri.

Nonetheless, in January 2009 the Obama administration loudly announced a Syrian reset policy, as if the previous estrangement were due more to George Bush than to Bashar Assad. Indeed, during the 2008 campaign, informal Obama advisers traveled to Syria to talk of a new relationship, and the Assad regime was openly banking on an Obama victory. John Kerry frequented Damascus and assured us that his talks with Bashar Assad would lead to an Obama–Assad breakthrough (e.g., “Our latest conversation gave me a much greater sense that Assad is willing to do the things that he needs to do in order to change his relationship with the United States”).

Soon after Obama’s inauguration, he appointed a new ambassador to Syria, the first since President Bush withdrew our ambassador in 2005. Secretary of State Clinton dubbed Assad a “reformer.” Mrs. Assad suddenly morphed into a chic Westernized first lady, a Middle Eastern Jackie Kennedy. Obama’s special envoy George Mitchell was the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Damascus in a decade. Bashar Assad warmed to the Obama outreach (“We have the impression that this administration will be different, and we have seen the signals”). Assad expressed his thanks for Obama’s initial pressure on Israel and invited the U.S. to his Damascus “summit” on the Middle East, where there might be grand talk of a new American thaw with Iran, daylight between the United States and Israel, and closer ties to Damascus.

[…]

3. Libya is no model. The Obama administration took out Moammar Qaddafi without the loss of a single American life. Why, then, is Libya not a model for Syria?

We established a new “lead from behind” strategy against Libya, showcasing the French and British while downplaying our own role. But what happens if there is no one now willing to be led from behind — as is apparently true with regard to Syria, where there would predictably be some losses on the allied side, unlike during the air war in Libya? What locomotives are there that we, the caboose, are to push ahead?

Obama bragged of obtaining U.N. resolutions against Libya — but he almost immediately exceeded their authorizations to enforce a no-fly zone and offer humanitarian aid, by ordering bombing in support of the Libyan insurrectionists. Libya, then, offers no U.N. multilateral model, but unfortunately just the opposite: China and Russia now do not trust any American-sponsored U.N. resolutions and therefore oppose them against Syria (and Iran), warning that they are not going to be had again. Nor is the U.S. Congress on board. Consulting the U.N. but not Congress when contemplating bombing Libya was not a paradigm that will win congressional support against Syria.

It is almost impossible to think of anything worse than the Qaddafi regime. But if the postbellum killing and torture — much of it racially inspired, as we see from videos of black Africans put into zoo-like cages by our erstwhile allies — continues, Libya may get there yet. British graves in Benghazi had survived 70 years of monarchs, tyrants, and Moammar Qaddafi, but they could not withstand a few months of the Arab Spring.

[…]

The final irony?

The Obama State Department is quietly briefing U.S. officials and foreign governments that Syria not only has sizable stores of biological and chemical weapons, but also may be likely in fact to use both in extremis — an apparent attempt to help justify the possibility of some sort of aerial intervention or other preemptive attack. This is the liberal mirror image of the Bush administration’s 2002–03 worries about Saddam’s Iraq.

Actually, there is a final, final irony. If that intelligence is true, and if the Assad regime in fact has such enormous WMD stores, where might at least some of these weapons have come from?

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

63 Responses to “Obama Promises To Have Israel’s Back: Expiration Date On Said Promise? A Day And A Half.” ( jump to bottom )

Obama Promises To Have Israel’s Back: Expiration Date On Said Promise? A Day And A Half.

Well, Liberals are a funny group.
Anti-semitic liberals are going to cling to Obama’s March the 6th speech, while Jewish liberals are warmed by his March the 4th statements.
Liberals must get splitting headaches from the logic battle going on in their subconscious.
Unless they don’t have a conscious.

US offered Israel advanced weaponry in exchange for delaying Iran attack: report
You know, after Obama is elected again

This offer ought to tell you a lot of things.

1) Obama believes that Israel is about to attack Iran.
2) Obama believes that he can convince Israel to commit suicide for his political benefit
3) Obama believes that a war in the Middle East would seriously harm his reelection chances.

@ doriangrey:
Posted this the other day, this is the mindset, its better to be a victim. Here citizens are concerned about violent crime, but I think they believe this at a national level.
MILLER: D.C.’s crime solution: Be a victim
City official insists residents shouldn’t defend themselves

Yea, Fluke them… I’m going with the old saying, better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6.

They may cut down on the closing costs for refinancing through original lenders not doing verifications but since the FHA upfront mortgage insurance and annual premiums are going up on April 1 (upfront from 1% to 1.75% and annual from .25% to .35%)- him saying they are lowering the FEES by half is just a flat out lie.